TABEKNACLE. 



639 



in Josh. viii. 31, where the altar on which Israel sac- 

 rificed was not the brazen altar of the tabernacle, 

 but one reared for the occasion. Perhaps it is again 

 referred to in 1 Ki. xviii. 30-32, where again the altar 

 is not that of a central national sanctuary. On the 

 supposition that both this law and the other two 

 were giren by Moses, this law is to be regarded as 

 stating what was correct Israelitish usage up to the 

 date when it was given, as regulating the usage from 

 then to the giving of the subsequent laws, and as 

 covering any cases that might afterward arise, which 

 did not faU'within the scope of the subsequent laws. 

 The second in date of the three laws is that given in 

 Lev. xvii., for, many assertions to the contrary not- '' 

 withstanding, Deut. xii. distinctly pre-iupposes Lev. 

 xviii., instead of being presupposed by it ; compare, : 

 for example, Deut. xii. 15 with Lev. xvii. 13, and 

 so all through the two chapters. This second law | 

 is applicable to Israelites in camp or out of camp, 

 but only when Israel is encamped around the taber- ] 

 nacle. It may have been enforced in the case of ' 

 whatever guard remained statedly with the tabor- I 

 nacle during the thirty-eight years of the wandering, 

 but it certainly was not enforced with the great body | 

 of the people during that time. In Dent. xii. 8, 

 and context, the people at large are rather excused 

 than rebuknd for doing as they pleased, in contrast 

 with sacrificing at a central altar only. After the 

 settlement in Canaan, this law could have no appli- 

 cation to the people in their homes, though it might 

 apply if expeditions were made in which they took 

 the tabernacle with them. The third sanctuary law 

 is that given in Dent. xii. and subsequent passages. 



Under this third law, Jehovah was to choose a 

 plane in the promised land, to put his name there, 

 and the people were to come to this place from 

 every part of the land, for certain acts of sacrifice 

 and worship, and these they were forbidden to per- 

 form elsewhere. Obedience to this law would al- 

 ways be impossible, except when Israel was settled 

 in Palestine, was at rest from enemies, and ws in , 

 possession of a place which was recognized as the 

 one chosen by Jehovah for the purpose. Accord- 

 ingly, these three limits are explicitly stated in the 

 law itself. Further, this law is qualified by an ex- 

 press permission to make private sacrificial feasts 

 anywhere and at any time, provided duo care was , 

 taken to prevent these from being confounded with 

 the public rites that were limited to the central 

 sanctuary, D.mt. xii. 15, 21, with the context. 



On the supposition that these three laws are all 

 genuine precepts of Moses, we should expect to find 

 the third law in constant operation in Israel in Pales- 

 tine, unless conditions of political unrest existed 

 th<t should renderitinfeasible, or unless acoudition 

 of things should arise in which no place was recog- 

 nized as the one chosen by Jehovah to place his name 

 there. Whenever either of these two conditions ex- 

 isted, obedience to the Deuteronomic law would be- 

 come impossible, and usage in Israel would again 

 Income subject to the two earlier laws, as these might ; 

 apply. In other words, all the laws alike recognize \ 

 the place where the tabernacle and the ark are as the , 

 national centre of worship. But when the tabernacle 

 and the ark are separated, or when either or both of 

 them move from their permanent location, or when 

 there is no permanent location for them, and they 

 simply wander from place to place, these facts consti- 

 tute modifications of circumstances that affect the 

 applicability of the several laws. 



As a matter of fact, the books of the Bible assert 

 that the condition of rest was given by Jehovah to 

 Israel in the time of Joshua, that Shiloh then became 

 the abiding plafe of the ark and tabernacle, and 

 therefore the national sanctuary, and remained so 

 till the time of Eli or later, and that only Sliiloh and 

 Jerusalem ever held this position, Josh, xviii. I, 8, 9, 

 10 ; six. 51 ; xxi. 2 ; xxii. 0, 12 ; Ju.l. \viii. 31 ; xxi. 



12, 19, 21 ; 1 Ram. i. 3, 9, 24 ; ii. 14 ; iii. 21 ; iv. 3, 4. 

 12 ; xiv. 3 ; 1 Ki. ii. 27 ; Ps. Ixxviii. CO ; Jer. vii. 12- 

 14 ; xxvi. 6-9, with contexts. They represent, how- 

 ever, that the ark was sometimes moved from Shiloh, 

 and that some respect was paid to the places that 

 had been made sacred by the experiences of the 

 patriarchs or of Israel in past times, 1 Sam. iv. ; Jud. 

 xx. 26-23 ; Josh, xxiv., especially ver. 26 ; 1 Sam. x. 

 8; xi. 14, etc. They further represent, however, 

 that during a large part of the time from Joshua to 

 David, and for the Northern kingdom after Solo- 

 mon, the conditions of rest were not such as to ren- 

 der obedience to the Deuteronomic law possible ; 

 and that, for some portion of the time between Eli 

 and David, there was no longer a recognized perma- 

 neut place for the ark and tabernacle together. 

 They represent that under David Jehovah again gave 

 Israel rest, and chose a place to put his name there, 

 and that, in pursuance of this, David placed the ark 

 in Jerusalem, and the tabernacle near l>y, in Gibeon, 

 thus constituting a divided central sanctuary, until 

 the temple was ready to absorb the functions of both 

 places, a Sam. vii. 1, 11 ; IChron. xxii. 9, 18 ; xxiii. 

 25 ; 1 Ki. v. 4 ; 1 Chron. vi. 31, etc. ; 1 Ki. viii. 44, 

 4S, etc. ; and the passages already referred to. 



Parts of this account come from several independ- 

 ent witnesses. The account is perfectly continuous 

 and consistent. Why should it not be believed ? 



In the article TEMPLE, in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA Bm- 

 TANNICA, we are reminded that there had been tem- 

 ples in Israel, both public and private, before that 

 built by Solomon. The instances mentioned are the 

 templt. at Shiloh, and Micah's house of gods, Jml. 

 xvii. 5. There might have been added the shrines 

 at Dan and Ophrah, Jud. xviii. 30, viii. 27, and it 

 ought to have been added that these places, with the 

 exception of Shiloh, are mentioned with clear indi- 

 cations of disapproval. It is said that in the matter 

 of the temple, "as in other matters, the Israelites 

 must have learned from the Canaanites." But how 

 does this follow? We are told that "in Solomon's 

 temple both the oracle and the outer cella had fold- 

 ing doors," and that "the Chronicler (2 Chron. iii. 

 14) introduces a vail in the first temple," this being 

 a feature of the post-exilic temple. But the folding 

 doors do not necessarily exclude the vail. It is fur- 

 ther said that " the first temple was primarily the 

 royal chapel, and the kings did as they pleased in it ; 

 the second temple was the sanctuary of the priests." 

 But several recorded instances, notably the rebellion 

 against Athalinh, and the withstanding of Uzziah, 2 

 Ki. xi. ; xv. 5 ; 2 Chron. xxiii. ; xxvi. 21-23, show 

 that the king's power in the first temple was limited ; 

 and the history throughout makes the first temple, 

 no less than the second, the sanctuary of the priests. 



Like these are all the attempts to prove that Is- 

 rael had no proper central sanctuary until the times of 

 Josiah. The historical notices of the successive 

 kings from Solomon mention that the worship in the 

 high-places was maintained ; but they mention it 

 with disapproval, so that each instance is an addi- 

 tional testimony to the fact that the law of the cen- 

 tral sanctuary was obligatory throughout this period. 

 Before Solomon many sacrifices and other acts of 

 worship are mentioned as occurring at other places 

 than the central sanctuary, and a plurality of legiti- 

 mate altars to Jehovah are recognized as existing in 

 the Northern kingdom, in the days of Elijah, 1 Ki. 

 xviii. 30, xix. 14. But all these instances are ex- 

 plained, either as being illegal, or as being instances 

 of the merely private sacrificial feasts that are pro- 

 vided for in the law itself, or as occurring in cir- 

 cumstances in which the law was inapplicable, and 

 the usage was therefore governed by the. earlier laws. 

 In fine, there is no reason that will stand the tost of 

 true criticism for refusing to accept the Biblical ac- 

 count of the tabernacle and its functions as the central 

 sanctuary of Israel, as historical and correct, (w 3. u.) 



